YOUR VIEW: City union's position justified

I have a comment concerning a letter in The Standard-Times, "Losing four hours won't hurt like layoffs" (Sept. 19).

MARK MESSIER

I have a comment concerning a letter in The Standard-Times, "Losing four hours won't hurt like layoffs" (Sept. 19).

Laurie Kligel of Fairhaven stated, "Are you serious?" in reply to my comments in a story about furloughs in New Bedford. Yes, I am serious. If she were a union member, she would not ask such a question. This is a union, and our members were absolutely asked their opinion of this situation.

In June 2008, the mayor met with our union members and informed them that he needed our help to avoid layoffs. If we were to give up one hour a week for a total of 6½ days, this would avoid any layoffs. We were also told that all the unions in the city would participate. First lie: We were the only union that took this furlough.

Then on Feb. 13, 2008, after the furlough was installed, 82 members were laid off. The mayor kept the furloughs in full, in addition to the layoffs — lie No. 2.

This past June, the union started to negotiate, and the city, along with the union, signed a contract for the ground rules during the negotiation. One of the rules of the committee was: "The parties agree that there will be no contact with the media regarding collective bargaining unless impasse is reached. After impasse, the parties agree to designate a single spokesperson for media contact. Notwithstanding the above, neither party shall have contact with the media within forty-eight (48) hours of declaration of impasse."

Why is it that the members of our union had to read about and hear on the radio from the mayor the items that were on the table for negotiation? For a while I thought we were negotiating through the media!

The city gave us a few proposals, one of which was to give up 10 percent of our pay. My question to the city was that if we took the 10 percent cut in pay, would this mean that there would be no layoffs? The city then informed us that there was no guarantee, and if they did lay people off, the 10 percent pay cut would remain in place.

Now I ask, what would you do if you knew that the city lied to you and that they did not seem to want to honor a contract that the two of you had agreed upon? Well, we did continue with our negotiations and asked how many of our members would be laid off — to which we received no answer. This continued for three meetings, and then the impasse was declared.

After all of this, the city informed us that they were going to do what they wanted and were going to implement the furlough just as planned. Now, if the mayor had the right to implement the furlough anyway, why is it that the union had to vote on it in 2008 and try to get it into negotiation?

And here is another question. Why is it that this union (but not all of this union) and Unit C are the only ones giving up 21.5 days, and no one else is giving up a thing? So, the mayor is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the members of AFSCME Local 851. And did you know that once an impasse is declared, nothing is allowed to be changed in the contract? Also, there is free training available for people who are laid off, plus there are other benefits available to them.

To answer Laurie Kligel's main questions, no, I do not want layoffs. What I would love to see happen is all the give-me jobs and dead-weight jobs go away, and then I would love to see how much money would be saved. If the city is in such a financial crisis, why are there retired people from Unit C back on the payroll part time and also receiving a retirement check? When Kligel finds the answer to this, she should let me know.

My hope is that she might see a little into what we are dealing with. It isn't only the union; it is a two-way street. There are always two sides to every story.

So, ask the questions: Why are we doing this? Also, we do not go running to the media with all of our problems. We keep our problems in house. Yes, my members always come first.